COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS

THE TRIAL COURT

LAND COURT DIVISION

)
MOHAN A HARIHAR ) Case No. 18-MISC-000144
)
Plaintiff )
)
v. )
)
WELLS FARGO BANK NA, et al )
)
Defendants )
)

PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION, RECONSIDERATION AND FILED

AFFIDAVIT FOLLOWING 9/11/18 ORDER RE: INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

After reviewing the Order issued by Judge Vhay on September 11, 2018, the Plaintiff disagrees

in part, and requests further clarification for the record. The Plaintiff files two (2) separate

responses – the first here to address the requested injunction; and the second to be filed shortly

hereafter to address issues and clarification regarding the renewed motion to amend the original

complaint.

I. Maintaining the Statas Quo - In his order, Judge Vhay states:

“His request for an injunction thus does not preserve the status quo, but instead alters it in

his favor”

First, the Plaintiff requests clarification for the record – exactly how the judge has

defined the status quo, as it pertains to housing and transportation of the Plaintiff. The

Plaintiff has requested the exact relief that would restore this specific balance of hardships;

1
 and disagrees with any suggestion that he is attempting to alter it. Furthermore, the

interpretation that the requested injunction is the same as ultimate damages sought is

incorrect. Mr. Harihar has made clear that he seeks to restore balance to housing and

transportation needs – while litigation is ongoing ONLY. Here, with a NATIONALLY

RECOGNIZED WRONGFUL FORECLOSURE SCENARIO, the result has been a clear

imbalance of hardships weighing heavily IN FAVOR of Mr. Harihar. To be clear, the

Plaintiff IS NOT stating that he should be paid monetary damages as part of the injunction;

but does believe there can be multiple solutions to restoring that balance without

compromising the intended legal purpose of the injunction. For example, restoring balance

as it pertains to housing and transportation (while litigation proceeds only) might include

(but not be limited to) the following:

A. Allowing Mr. Harihar to return to HIS property;

B. Providing Mr. Harihar with comparable rental housing while litigation is ongoing;

C. Providing Mr. Harihar with a comparable lease or rental vehicle while litigation is

ongoing.

Keep in mind, that ANY reference to past orders denying this relief are considered VOID,

either by: (1) the judge’s recusal; (2) Mr. Harihar’s evidenced supporting argument(s) of

record; or (3) combination of both (1) and (2).

II. Likelihood of Success on the Merits

Here, there is considerable concern as to how Judge Vhay could possibly have arrived at

this conclusion. On its surface, there appears to be a similar pattern of corrupt conduct,

synonymous/identical with evidenced judicial misconduct experienced in the related

2
Federal/ State litigation; and which has now resulted in SIX (6) RECUSALS. It

APPEARS that Judge Vhay has IGNORED the Plaintiff’s articulated arguments of record

INCLUDING (but not limited to) NEW EVIDENCE THAT REVEALS AN

ADMISSION OF GUILT BY THE DEFENDANT – WELLS FARGO, in order to reach

a corrupt and predetermined outcome. Left uncorrected, the Plaintiff shows cause (at

minimum) for recusal here and fears that the INTEGRITY of this MA Land Court has too,

been compromised.

Respectfully, it now becomes necessary to request from Judge Vhay - CLARIFICATION

for the record, with regard to the following questions (partial list):

1. Are you stating for the record that you have thoroughly reviewed the seven (7) plus

year historical record and have found NO evidenced argument to suggest the

likelihood of the Plaintiff’s success on the merits? Please clarify.

2. Are you stating for the record that the evidenced findings OF RECORD by: (a) The

Department of Justice (DOJ); (b) The Massachusetts Attorney General’s Office

(MA AGO); and (c) Federal Bank Regulators IDENTIFYING the Plaintiff’s

Foreclosure as VOID - DOES NOT contribute to the likelihood of the Plaintiff’s

success on the merits? Please clarify.

3. When State/Federal Government agencies – AND Federal Bank Regulators have

identified misconduct identified with the Plaintiff’s Foreclosure, would it not make

sense to seek further validation DIRECTLY FROM THESE PARTIES via

Discovery/subpoenaed testimony in order to educate the Court? Please clarify.

3
4. Are you stating for the record that the Plaintiff’s August submissions: (a) Motion to

Amend, filed 8/22/18; or (b) Plaintiff Clarification RE: Balance of Hardships, filed

8/28/18 DOES NOT contain a SINGLE argument that contributes to the likelihood

of the Plaintiff’s success on the merits? Please clarify.

5. Are you stating for the record that the ADMISSION OF GUILT BY THE

DEFENDANT – WELLS FARGO, now a NATIONAL HEADLINE - DOES

NOT contribute to the likelihood of the Plaintiff’s success on the merits?

Furthermore, are you stating that the acknowledgment of this admission BY

MEMBERS OF CONGRESS - DOES NOT contribute to the likelihood of the

Plaintiff’s success on the merits? Please clarify.

6. Are you stating for the record that the referenced March 23, 2014 - HOMEOWNER

DISCLOSURE, as referenced throughout the historical record, DOES NOT

contribute to the likelihood of the Plaintiff’s success on the merits? Please clarify.

7. Are you stating for the record that the EVIDENCED arguments that

IRREFUTABLY show the RMBS Trust CMLTI 2006-AR1 is VOID - DOES

NOT contribute to the likelihood of the Plaintiff’s success on the merits? Please

clarify.

8. Are you stating for the record that (UNOPPOSED) Fraud on the Court

Argument(s), pursuant to Mass. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(3) - DOES NOT contribute to the

likelihood of the Plaintiff’s success on the merits? Please clarify.

9. Are you stating for the record that the 8/2/18 Ruling by the 9th Circuit – indicating

the Borrowers Right to File Suit Against Wells Fargo over Mortgage

4
 Modifications, DOES NOT contribute to the likelihood of the Plaintiff’s success on

the merits? Please clarify.

10. Are you stating for the record that the 8/1/18 Settlement between DEFENDANT –

WELLS FARGO and the DOJ for $2.1B Over Mortgage Abuses - DOES NOT

contribute to the likelihood of the Plaintiff’s success on the merits? Please clarify.

11. Are you stating for the record that the EVIDENCED IMPROPER

RELATIONSHIPS/COLLUSION between: (a) Bank Attorneys; (b) The MA

AGO; and (c) The US Attorney’s Office (MA) - DOES NOT contribute to the

likelihood of the Plaintiff’s success on the merits? Please clarify.

12. Are you stating that there is NO supported argument of record - showing the

UNCLEAN HANDS of the DEFENDANTS that would contribute to the likelihood

of the Plaintiff’s success on the merits? Please clarify.

13. Are you stating for the record that the 8/6/18 Settlement between HSBC and the DOJ

(including the Commonwealth of MA) regarding the bank’s mortgage origination

and securitization activities from 2005 to 2007 DOES NOT contribute to the

likelihood of the Plaintiff’s success on the merits? Please clarify.

14. Are you stating for the record that the APOLOGY LETTER and $3000 check

issued by the VICE PRESIDENT of DEFENDANT – WELLS FARGO to the

PLAINTIFF for its FAILURE(S) to modify his mortgage - DOES NOT

contribute to the likelihood of the Plaintiff’s success on the merits? Please clarify.

15. Are you stating for the record that the EVIDENCED WELLS FARGO

FORECLOSURE MANUAL - DOES NOT contribute to the likelihood of the

Plaintiff’s success on the merits? Please clarify.

5
16. Are you stating for the record that the 22-MONTHS OF RECORDED

CONVERSATIONS between the Plaintiff and Defendant (Servicer) – WELLS

FARGO - DO NOT contribute to the likelihood of the Plaintiff’s success on the

merits? Please clarify.

17. Are you suggesting that after reviewing seven (7) plus years of court records, Mr.

Harihar HAS NOT put forth IRREFUTABLE arguments supporting the FOUR-

FACTOR TEST that certainly would contribute to the likelihood of his success on

the merits? Please clarify.

18. Are you stating that after reviewing seven (7) plus years of court records, Mr. Harihar

HAS NOT evidenced case law, case references, citations, etc. to support EACH

AND EVERY ONE of his claims; and that certainly would contribute to the

likelihood of his success on the merits? Please clarify.

19. Are you stating for the record that after reviewing seven (7) plus years of court

records and the Plaintiff’s EVIDENCED ARGUMENTS - that there DOES NOT

appear to be A SINGLE ERRED JUDGMENT by either THIS

COMMONWEALTH OR THE UNITED STATES?

20. Are you stating for the record that after reviewing seven (7) plus years of court

records, Mr. Harihar HAS NOT ALREADY PROVIDED ANY EXECPTION to a

Res Judicata, Collateral Estoppel or time-barred Defense? Please clarify.

21. Are you stating for the record that the Plaintiff WILL NOT incur Irreparable

Harm if an Injunction is not TIMELY Granted? Please clarify.

22. Are you stating for the record that granting the requested injunction WILL NOT

have A Favorable Impact on the Public Interest? Please clarify.

6
Please be advised – after providing the requested clarification for the record, the Plaintiff

respectfully requests that Judge Vhay RECONSIDER his decision pertaining (first) to the

Injunction. Mr. Harihar – who is NOT a legal expert is certainly willing to provide additional

clarification for ANY of the supported arguments (stated within) upon request. HOWEVER, IF:

(1) there is a failure to provide clarification for the record; and (2) if the decision, pertaining to

the injunction remains UNCORRECTED, the Plaintiff believes he will have evidenced a

SIMILAR PATTER OF CORRUPT CONDUCT in this MA LAND Court; showing cause

(at minimum) for immediate RECUSAL here. Such failures will also show cause to update the

Federal Court with regard to Appeal No. 17-1381, HARIHAR v. US BANK et al, including

incremental evidence against Defendant – Commonwealth of Massachusetts. The Plaintiff

also re-states his continued concerns for his safety and well-being; as this order issued on

September 11, 2018 appears to contribute to those concerns.

While there is sharp criticism delivered here, the Appellant’s clear intention is to be respectful to

Judge Vhay, to this Court; and to express gratitude for granting the timeline extension to file his

Opposition to the Defendant’s Summary Judgment Motion. The Plaintiff is grateful for the

Court’s consideration. If there is a question regarding ANY portion of this motion, the Plaintiff

is happy to provide additional supporting information upon request, in a separate hearing and

with the presence of an independent court reporter.

7
Respectfully submitted under the pains and penalties of perjury, this 12th Day of September, 2018

Mohan A. Harihar
Plaintiff
7124 Avalon Drive
Acton, MA 01720
Mo.harihar@gmail.com

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on September 12, 2018 I electronically filed and via US Mail the foregoing
with the Clerk of Court and counsel for the Defendants (listed below) via email communication:

Jeffrey B. Loeb
David E. Fialkow

Mohan A. Harihar
Plaintiff
7124 Avalon Drive
Acton, MA 01720
617.921.2526 (Mobile)
Mo.harihar@gmail.com